The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Motions: Standing Order 56.1; directing the business of committees

June 5, 2007

Debates, p. 10124

On May 31, 2007, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform) moved, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, a motion to the effect that the consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, should not be adjourned or suspended until it had completed committee stage. Fewer than 25 Members having risen to object, the motion was agreed to.^[1] Later in the sitting, Ralph Goodale (Wascana) rose on a point of order to object to the use of Standing Order 56.1 to dispose of the committee stage of the Bill. He cited a Speaker’s ruling of September 18, 2001, in support of his argument. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform), responded that the Speaker had ruled a similar motion in order on October 3, 2006, with the only difference being that this time, the motion concerned a bill that was before a committee. He also argued that, as was the case with the motion moved on October 3, 2006, the motion in question did not set any deadline for completion of the proceedings and that it was an instance of the House managing its business and arranging its proceedings. After hearing from other Members, the Deputy Speaker (Bill Blaikie) ruled immediately. He declared that the use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of a committee was a new development and out of order, and that the reasons for his decision would be provided by the Chair at a later date.^[2]

On June 5, 2007, the Deputy Speaker returned to the House to elaborate on his preliminary ruling. He noted that instructions to committees are usually given by way of a substantive motion and referred to the Speaker’s ruling of September 18, 2001, in which the Speaker stated that the Government also had available to it Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate in committees. After reviewing previous uses of the Standing Order, the Deputy Speaker concluded that it was not meant to be used to direct the conduct of the business of standing committees, but rather in a routine manner, to provide committees with powers they did not already possess, such as the power to travel. Finally, the Deputy Speaker reminded the House that the use of Standing Order 56.1 had caused serious concerns in the past, causing Mr. Speaker Milliken and Mr. Speaker Parent before him to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look into the matter.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: Before going to Orders of the Day I would like to give the ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wascana regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1 to timetable the proceedings on a bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

On May 31, 2007 during Routine Proceedings the Government House Leader sought, but did not obtain, unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44 except pursuant to a motion by a Parliamentary Secretary and, provided the Bill is adopted by the Committee, agrees to report the Bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage.

He then moved the motion again pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 and the motion was adopted when fewer than 25 Members rose to object. A short time later, the hon. Member for Wascana raised a point of order regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1. He was supported by interventions from the hon. Member for Joliette and the hon. Member for Hamilton Centre, while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the motion adopted earlier had been appropriately presented under Standing Order 56.1.

Given that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was imminent, I delivered an immediate ruling promising that the Chair would return to the House later with reasons. I am now prepared to do so.

First, the Chair would like to thank all hon. Members who intervened on the point of order for their contributions on this question and is particularly grateful that Members have taken note of certain key rulings, specifically those the Speaker delivered on September 18, 2001 and October 3, 2006.

A key element in my ruling today is the fundamental precept that standing committees are masters of their own procedure. Indeed, so entrenched is that precept that only in a select few Standing Orders does the House make provision for intervening directly into the conduct of standing committee affairs. In addition to the power the House has to give instructions to committees by way of a substantive motion that is subject to debate, there are, of course, Standing Orders 57 and 78, which can be used by the House to allocate time or for closure proceedings on a bill in committee. It is toward the use of these very instruments that the Speaker directed the House in his ruling of September 18, 2001, on Debates page 5257, where, as the hon. Member for Wascana pointed out, the Speaker stated:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate.

Let us now turn to the Speaker’s ruling of October 3, 2006 allowing the use of Standing Order 56.1 to extend, in an open-ended fashion, the debate on Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Bill.

It should be noted at the outset that when Standing Order 56.1 was used in reference to Bill C-24, the Bill was then before the House at second reading, not before a standing committee. In allowing the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that case the Speaker did so with some concern and on the basis that:

The precedents available to me, including my own previous rulings, are [therefore] insufficient for me to rule the motion out of order on this occasion.

This is part of the Speaker’s ruling quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. At the time the Speaker had more to say. He also encouraged, as had Mr. Speaker Parent before him, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of this Standing Order, a pretty clear indication of the difficulties with which the House has had to deal when Standing Order 56.1 has been invoked in questionable circumstances.

In the present case, the Chair has looked carefully at the wording of Standing Order 56.1, which states in reference to the House itself that the Standing Order can be used to move motions in relation to “the management of its business” and “the arrangement of its proceedings”. Interestingly, the only reference to committees in the Standing Order is one allowing motions for “the establishing of the powers of its committees”, suggesting that the rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them powers they do not already possess. A review of the previous uses of Standing Order 56.1 appears to support this. The only examples dealing with standing committees or standing committee activity the Chair has been able to find have to do with granting standing committees the power to travel. The power to travel is, as all hon. Members know, a power standing committees do not possess and so the use of Standing Order 56.1 in that regard falls squarely within the parameters of the rule.

Accordingly, to repeat the words I used when this matter was first raised, the use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the Committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order.

I thank all hon. Members who intervened for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.